The big obstacle to this is, despite the US making such allegations for several years, and getting NATO to endorse their narrative, Russia has denied ever violating the deal in the first place, and insists the missile in question, the 9m729, is not banned by the treaty.

The question is based on the missile’s range, with INF banning everything from 500 km to 5,500 km. Russia has only tested the missile to about 400 km, and it is intended to replace a missile that itself was only 400 km. US officials, however, have speculated that the missile has a much longer range.

This makes any deal unlikely, as Russia would not only have to admit the missile has a longer range than it was tested to actually have, but also agree to get rid of the system, which would severely limit their short-range capabilities until they are able to roll out something else that the US would accept.

US officials have been keen to pull out of the INF for awhile anyhow, and this ultimatum is mostly meant to serve as a legal pretext to do so. The withdrawal would allow the US to deploy nuclear missiles into Europe.

It is good only for the top 1% who make our “leadership” work hard for their money.
But this move is a gamble by top 1% that believe themselves immortal, God like, thinking they cannot lose. Gambling mentality is making them double and tripple down. There is overeach written all over it.

I hope to live long enough to see our “leadership” get its comeuppance. But I don’t think I will, they have done an excellent job rigging the game in their favor. Even more amazing is their ability to get we the “hoi polloi” to cheer our own destruction.

And looking at places like UK and France, poverty is stalking their lands. And being proud people, they do what they must to make ends meet. But it is at the breaking point. Scotland has high rate of poverty outside Edinburgh, and in England, in the heart of well to do areas, like Oxford, homeless are lined up along posh streets, and in front of grocery stores. Homeless people and their homeless dogs. No housing is built for average income people, as it does not pay to developers to pay land and financing for low income population. And there is more and more low income people, middle class is collapsing. In France, poverty is at the root of protests, not just a tax hike. In US, Middle America has experienced the crash of expectations. Just like in UK and France, money is concentrated in power centers, while peripheries atrophy. It is not unlike Roman empire, when all the provinces collapsed financially, and Rome was still prospering. But the poor from all around the periphery was in the move, and eventually overwhelmed the center.

Whenever sustainable economy is destroyed by financial instruments in the name of efficiency — it miraculously always enriches those that in the name of efficiency exaust the very economy they claim to advance.

The results are here. But nobody is asking for reexamination of economic premises, for correction of course, nothing. It cannot be done, as those that created the system benefiting them will not allow any meaningfull change. They are now in a hurry to expand globally, as there is a lots of pushback. The zeal to push others around, to command, to humiliate and demean others is only commensurate with the loss of real power to control the despicable others. Such folks — I hope — should be brought down from their perch gently, as in their juvenile fury they can cause a lots of harm.

Roman “provinces” such as Anglia did not collapse financially. Rome had to withdraw its soldiers from the provinces because the heartland was threatened by newcomers on its northern and northeastern borders. Moreover, Romans stopped volunteering for the armed forces which were increasingly stocked, even at the highest levels of command, by foreigners.

This was expected. US pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002 and has been looking for an excuse to pull out of INF ever since too. Especially since US was ready to install nukes in the “missile defence” systems in Poland and Romania.

Russia tried for years to convince the US to come back to their senses but to no avail, eventually she had to respond to the ABM pull out and the response came in March this year when Putin announced these unprecedented ground-breaking weapons, the Avangard, the Sarmat and the nuke engine missile with unlimited reach most notably, that effectively put MAD back on track.

US realized their arrogant unipolar moment was over but instead of going back to ABM and stay in the INF they decided to take the Ziocon approach, pretend that nothing happened and double and triple down on Russia with an incredibly stupid “ultimatum”. Europe has learned the hard way that threats doesn’t work very well on Russia apparently not the Americans.

If NATO and US move back to the Reagan-Gorbachev 1987 agreement Russia will go along. Cause and effect

If Russia has to jump every time the US decides to invent “facts” as the basis for diplomacy, the goal-post will always be moving away from them until no more Russian territory exists. Such is the Trump art of the deal.

“The withdrawal would allow the US to deploy nuclear missiles into Europe.”
If Europe is stupid/ cowardly enough to accept any more missiles on their countries’ soil, targeting Russia (FOR NO REASON, of course) why on earth will Russia not target them, as it certainly cannot target the USA as we all know.

NATO is supposed to be some sort of protection against the evil Russkies (well, really, against the USSR evil commies which have now been absent for over 25 years) so how does it help the “allies” to have the USA with this bullying action making the whole area of Europe much less safe?

Who the hell does the US think it is to tell Russia it cannot place defensive weapons to counter American threats on its own damn soil?
We are going all the way with this madness.
The universe will be better off without us.

2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give notice of its decision to withdraw to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from this Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

Starting on the day when President Trump announces withdrawal (with Congressional approval) the treaty is still US law for six more months.

Pompeo’s statement is not a withdrawal notification.
I have been unable to find an article of the treaty which contains this sixty day notification.
The treaty contains several voluminous articles about inspections.

Without inspection and without evidence that this missile has a 500+ km range withdrawal will be yet another signal to others that the US is an extremely unreliable negotiation and treaty partner.

There is something to be said in favor of a new arms treaty. INF does not cover submarines, or other naval assets. Renegotiatingva clmprehensive deal would make sense for all — as Europe knows full well that with submarines and missile defence INF is not pritecting them. And US would probably just continued with INF — it works in US favor. Missile defence is in a matter of minutes converted to land based missile offense that violates INF. So, why get out if it — removing even the fig leaf of European respectability? Showing in the most clear manner that Europe is not a partner or a factor in global arms race. Again, why get out of something that worked for US? Unless US plans to openly place prohibited misile ranges — again, why? All this does is create a sense of global insecurity. Again, why? The inly answer I can think off is — US wants to negotiate a new treaty that would force Russia to put on the table new classes of weapons, and reveal their scientific and technical data. For Trump irbUS in general IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FROM THE POSITION OF WEAKNESS. Thus, we are the ines threatening to add prihibited range land base sistems, by simply converting missile defence — which is not much of a defense to start with. In addition to naval assets, this gives Russia’s defences a tough task.
But, since MAD is back, and US is no longer invulnerable — the question is, is US leadership aiming at a comprehensive security deal, including Chinese? Or are our “civilian” guardians of military really gamblers, hoping to find Russian weakness and take risk to degrade their capabilities before the inevitable Russian advance. I still do not see leadership qualities on any level that can rise above adolescent bragging.

The weapon that has not been mentioned much is Russian nuclear submarine drone. One has to keep in mind Russian-Chinese joint development and production. They are clearly designed to counter naval assets, all types. This direction of Russian weaponry explains the selectivity of naval buildup in Russia. All in all — getting out of INF is risky. It gives room to those elements of establishment that are prone to risky gambles, without guaranteeing productive negotiations.

You are right. The “US Administration” does not seem to include any real thinking before actions and threats. Negotiations and agreements are essential and Russia has asked for them at least since GWBush pulled the US out of the ABM treaty in 2002.
Putin’s March 1 speech this year, which the US scorned as bluff, probably really worried the Pentagon types who have any idea of what is really happening. The Russians know from experience they need defense, but the USA always favors offense. Russia is well in advance in what is required but is of course anxious to avoid war.